Thread: Vitamin D

My grandpa was recently prescribed a Vitamin D regiment to be taken daily. They found that his Vitamin D was very low, and told him to take 10,000 IU per day. I was wondering if it was something like they were just trying to boost it up to an appropriate level, then level it off? That's what I was thinking they might be doing.

Wiki says to take between 200 and 600 IU depending on the age, but the bottle of Vitamin D we have, says to take one capsule per day, which is 1000 IU.

I also found a site that claims poisoning starts at 40,000 IU, but again, the wiki is saying you shouldn't be taking more than 2,000 IU a day.

(http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/vitaminDToxicity.shtml) and
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D)

So with the discrepancy, which should I trust, and does anyone have any (hopefully professional) knowlege on how much a day I should be getting?

Also, does anyone know approximately how much vitamin D should be in the body, and/or the rate at which it diminishes.

actually adequate levels of vitamin D is highly individualized , it differs from one to another ... so what your doctor prescribed according to the blood test results is preciser than what wiki says - in general - ...
however , if you are not sure .. you can consult another doctor ...

Dear all

This is Nicole Anderson. i would like to post a reply on vitamin D,i think the ultimate source of this D vitamin is Sun,Thank you.

__________________________________________________ _______

Discover the hidden source of targeted traffic that unearths eager* buying customers, drives them straight to your site, and literally explodes your profits almost overnight at just simple click unique article wizard.

I would be interested to find out from Haasum who prescribed that dose. If it was a doctor, I would definitely suggest getting a second opinion. If it was a naturopath, herbalist, or other quack, I would ignore the advice.

Older people need a minimum of 15 micrograms per day of Vitamin D. (600 international units). Prescribing something massively greater appears to be unnecessary and possibly harmful.

As a generalisation for all vitamins, the minimum daily intake is also the maximum useful intake. For example, the average person needs 50 milligrams of vitamin C per day. If he/she takes 100 mgms instead, that just means the kidneys work a little harder to excrete the excess.

Anyone who experiences adequate sunlight needs no vitamin D by mouth. However, there are people who hardly go outdoors, and also people with dark skins who need more sunlight. Some parts of the world have low intensity sunlight. For these reasons, sometimes a Vitamin D supplement is a good idea.

However, mega doses are more likely, as a general rule, to cause harm than benefit.

Ask a physician, online or offline. A real MD.

Offtopic, Eliezer & Nicole61 are two spammers.

Current research indicates that the current RDA for vitamin D is extremely low, and that the average adult should consume 4,000-5,000 IU/day.

That dose is a maintenance dose, that is once you reach a good vitamin D level, you should take 4,000 - 5,000 IU/day to maintain that level. Since your grandpa is deficient he is going to need quite a higher dose to bump his vitamin D level to normal.

Links for more information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emjCzaHtSrg ( see 37:16 of video for dosage )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDg0BJw10Y4 ( see 26:44 of video for dosage )
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
http://www.vitamind3-cholecalciferol...n-d-dosage.htm

Originally Posted by skeptic

Older people need a minimum of 15 micrograms per day of Vitamin D. (600 international units). Prescribing something massively greater appears to be unnecessary and possibly harmful.

The RDA for vitamin D is wrong. (That is, until they finally decide to update it)

Originally Posted by hiro

Current research indicates that the current RDA for vitamin D is extremely low, and that the average adult should consume 4,000-5,000 IU/day.

That dose is a maintenance dose, that is once you reach a good vitamin D level, you should take 4,000 - 5,000 IU/day to maintain that level. Since your grandpa is deficient he is going to need quite a higher dose to bump his vitamin D level to normal.

Links for more information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emjCzaHtSrg ( see 37:16 of video for dosage )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDg0BJw10Y4 ( see 26:44 of video for dosage )
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
http://www.vitamind3-cholecalciferol...n-d-dosage.htm

Originally Posted by skeptic

Older people need a minimum of 15 micrograms per day of Vitamin D. (600 international units). Prescribing something massively greater appears to be unnecessary and possibly harmful.

The RDA for vitamin D is wrong. (That is, until they finally decide to update it)

Hoax.

Hoax? What do you mean?

Did you even check the links (and especially the youtube lectures)?

Originally Posted by hiro

Hoax? What do you mean?

I mean it's not based on truth.

I think it's going to take a little more to convince me that two recent medical lectures (that present a lot of data) are wrong.

Originally Posted by hiro

I think it's going to take a little more to convince me that two recent medical lectures (that present a lot of data) are wrong.

LOL
Cite your sources or go away. (I mean some real research, not bogus webpages and youtube videos)

So two university medical lectures are considered "bogus"? I see.

Please find me research that support that intakes of 200IU/day are adequate for optimal health. When the body produces over 10,000IU in response to some minutes of strong sunlight, 200IU/day sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

Originally Posted by hiro

So two university medical lectures are considered "bogus"? I see.

Two "university lectures" are not adequate evidence, especially if you are trying to challenge well accepted facts. Why don't you publish it in reputable scientific journals instead of single-purpose pages?

I said 15 micrograms per day for an older person, where older people need more.

This is the recommendation of the American National Institute of Health.
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp

I am well aware, as obviously so is Twit of Wit, that there are heaps of food quacks, who recommend massive doses of various vitamins. Those megadoses put lots of $$$ in the pockets of those who sell the vitamins, but do nothing to help the people who take them.

If the recommendation for daily requirement changes, as expressed by reputable health bodies, then I will change my view. Until then, I will treat megadose recommendations as being a load of crap.

If the recommendation for daily requirement changes, as expressed by reputable health bodies, then I will change my view.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...841631864.html

My mate, a biochemist, is obsessed with vit D. He takes 50,000 IU a day, for about 2 years now i think. I hope he likes renal stones.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

My mate, a biochemist, is obsessed with vit D. He takes 50,000 IU a day, for about 2 years now i think. I hope he likes renal stones.

If that was true, he would have developed toxicity be now. :P Maybe he said 5,000IU, which is perfectly safe. 50,000IU is not safe at all.

No, i've watched him do it quite a few times. 50,000 IU - he had to search the net for a long time to find a company that sold 5,000 IU tablets (largest he could find), takes 10 throughout a day. He might be exagerrating how often and for how long he does it though. Still, he's a vitamin D monster.

o.O maybe he takes 50,000IU, but only once every week? That's safe, too. 50,000IU every day is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin...e_by_ingestion

In healthy adults, sustained intake of 1250 micrograms/day (50,000 IU) can produce overt toxicity after several months;

Per day, according to him. No signs of toxicity so far. He drinks loads of water to try to minimise renal complications. I'm trying to scare him into reducing the dose, but i'm also kinda interested to see how much his kidneys can take.

So, question. Could the "larger than necessary" dose be due to possible breakdown of the vitamin in the stomach before it can be absorbed? I know this happens with B vitamins, hence the large doses compared to the daily recommended amount. Does this happen with Vitamin D supplements as well?

McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Encyclopedia: Vitamin D

Either of two fat-soluble sterol-like compounds, ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) and activated cholecalciferol (vitamin D3). Vitamin D2 is formed from the irradiation of ergosterol, a plant sterol. However, vitamin D3 is normally manufactured in the skin, where ultraviolet light activates the compound 7-dehydrocholesterol. Vitamins D3 and D2 are about equal in activity in all mammals except New World monkeys and birds, in which vitamin D2 is approximately one-tenth as active as vitamin D3. See also Vitamin.

Vitamin D as acquired from the diet or produced in the skin is biologically inactive. It must be metabolized by the liver to produce 25-hydroxyvitamin D3. However, this compound is also biologically inactive under physiological circumstances and must be activated by the kidney to produce the final vitamin D hormone, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3. This hormonal form of vitamin D plays an essential role in stimulating intestinal absorption of calcium and phosphorus, in the mobilization of calcium from bone, and in renal reabsorption of calcium. The function of vitamin D has been expanded beyond regulating plasma calcium and phosphorus levels, and hence healing the diseases of rickets and osteomalacia. It is now known that the vitamin D hormone controls parathyroid gland growth and production of the parathyroid hormone. It is an immunomodulator. Vitamin D hormone also appears to play a role in the regulation of insulin production or secretion. Finally, it is required for female reproduction. These new sites of action of vitamin D are under intense investigation. See also Hormone.

Vitamin D is largely absent from the food supply. It is found in large amounts in fish liver oils; cod liver oil has long been known to be an important source of vitamin D. Fortified foods are the major dietary source of vitamin D, but the major overall source is the production of vitamin D in skin by exposure to sunlight or ultraviolet irradiation. In winter months at temperate latitudes, insufficient amounts of vitamin D are produced in skin, and unless it is replaced by a dietary source, danger of insufficiency exists.

A deficiency of vitamin D in growing animals results in the disease rickets. A similar disease, osteomalacia, occurs in adult animals. By far the most serious disorder of vitamin D deficiency is the low-blood calcium levels which result in convulsions known as hypocalcemic tetany. Moderate deficiency of vitamin D may contribute to osteoporosis, especially in the elderly. See also Bone; Osteoporosis.

The recommended daily requirement for vitamin D3 is 10 micrograms or 400 international units (IU). Higher requirements are reported for the elderly and for rapidly growing adolescents: 20 μg or 800 IU per day. It is possible that the average requirement is lower than 10 μg per day. The exact absolute requirement has never been determined.

I plan to keep taking my D3 supplements @ 1000 IU daily

Vitamin D is an important part of a healthy diet. Vitamin D is a group of fat-soluble secosteroids. Vitamin D encourages the absorption and metabolism of calcium. Vitamin D3 is essential for your physical and mental health.

I think you'd better ask your doctor for more details .

20 micrograms, or 800 International Units is all anyone needs, at maximum.

Take more than that, and you end up with expensive urine, and no benefit.

Vitamin D is fat soluble so the body can store excess amounts (half-life of 2 months), and excretes mainly in the bile when it is excreted. Sorry, can't help but nit-pick sometimes. But there are trials where up to 100'000 IU are given every 2 months (half-life of 2 months), for falls prevention and is safe.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/87/3/688.full

I think the recommended doses will increase for certain conditions. A meta-analysis found a sub-group taking more >800IU daily had fewer falls.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/727626

Raises the question whether supplementation should be subject to the same stringent rules as drugs, which some healthcare workers are calling for.

Prometheus

Taking 100,000 IU every 2 months or less is a convenient method of avoiding the tedium of daily dosing. A simple calculation, though, shows that 800 IU per day is a more efficient method (less vitamin D wasted).

Personally, I would not trust the megadose method. While no immediate harm was seen in that trial, as a general rule, massive doses of any vitamin are not a good idea, since unforeseen toxicity may arise.

I do not take any, myself, since I live in an area with adequate ultra violet, even in winter, and I live a life with lots of outdoor activity.

My trust has just put out guidelines to prescribe 2000 IU daily vitamin D.

I think all this just illustrates that supplements need to put under the same stringent guidelines/research as medications - it's amazing how little we know about supplementation compared to medication. Only then will recommended doses mean anything.

Wonderful post... Very informational and educational as usual!

kohls in store coupons

Prometheus Thanks for share good website i was read content..thanks

Vitamins is most important in every person's life. There are many vitamins If I talk about vitamin D than its fat-soluble secosteroids. We can get vitamin D in fish, milk, butter, chesses, flour and margarine. Vitamin D is good for health as well as skin.

Vitamin D is actually a HORMONE, which acts as a master hormone, regulating and orchestrating what the rest of the body’s hormones are doing. In addition, it is responsible for bone health, cardiovascular health, emotional health, strength, hair growth, immune function, and normal cell life span. Recent research into this substance reveals just how powerful it can be!

===============
Medical Institute